Download The Power(/Knowledge) of Marketing

The Power(/Knowledge) of Marketing
Martin Fougère (corresponding author)
[email protected]
Hanken in Helsinki
P.O. Box 479
FI-00101
Helsinki, Finland
Per Skålén
[email protected]
Karlstad University
The Service Research Center
SE-65188
Karlstad, Sweden
Abstract
Mainstream marketing scholars and to a large extent marketing historians argue that
marketing turned into a managerial discourse when the marketing concept was launched
toward the end of the 1950’s. We contend that this standpoint is based on a too limited
understanding of managerialism and power, which has been characteristic of much of
management studies. In this paper we show that the marketing discipline clearly contained
managerial schools or articulations from the 1910’s on. Some of these were more implicitly
managerial, and others were explicitly so. Our analysis shows that marketing has promoted
and has been based on different conceptualizations of power at different points in time.
Accordingly, our analysis not only makes clear that the marketing discipline has been based
on a notion of power from its very early days and thus has always been a managerial
discourse, it also displays how the power base of marketing has changed. In addition to this
we argue that the managerialism of marketing has been of a certain kind already from the
outset: marketing has promoted a clear managerial rationality that has been contingent on the
power promoted. We will explicate this rationality, which we call ‘customerism’.
In a first section we make a Foucault-inspired distinction between three types of power that
we use to analyze marketing discourse: sovereign power, disciplinary power and pastoral
power. We then move on to describe the managerialism of marketing at different points in
time and analyze it through our power framework. Lastly our conclusions and contributions
are put forward.
Submitted to the Stream
‘Critical marketing perspectives on identity construction in market exchanges’,
Fifth International Critical Management Studies Conference,
Manchester, 11-13 July 2007
Introduction
Mainstream marketing scholars (Keith 1960; Levitt 1960; Vargo and Lusch 2004; Webster
1992) and to a large extent marketing historians (e.g. Bartels 1962; Jones and Shaw 2002)
argue that marketing turned into a managerial discourse when the marketing concept was
launched toward the end of the 1950’s. We contend that this standpoint is based on a too
limited understanding of managerialism and power, which has been characteristic of much of
management studies (Clegg et al. 2006). In this paper we show that the marketing discipline
clearly contained managerial schools or articulations from the 1910’s on. Some of these were
more implicitly managerial, and others were explicitly so. Our analysis shows that marketing
has promoted and has been based on different conceptualizations of power at different points
in time. Accordingly, our analysis not only makes clear that the marketing discipline has been
based on a notion of power from its very early days and thus has always been a managerial
discourse, it also displays how the power base of marketing has changed. In addition to this
we argue that the managerialism of marketing has been of a certain kind already from the
outset: marketing has promoted a clear managerial rationality that has been contingent on the
power promoted. We will explicate this rationality, which we call ‘customerism’.
The paper is structured as follows. In the first section, based on Foucault (1977; 1981), we
make a distinction between three types of power that we use to analyze marketing discourse:
sovereign power, disciplinary power and pastoral power. We then move on to describe the
managerialism of marketing at different points in time and analyze it through our power
framework. Lastly our conclusions and contributions are put forward.
Power
In this section we make a distinction between sovereign power, disciplinary power and
pastoral power. Our framework is inspired by the work on power by Michel Foucault (1977;
1981).
Sovereign power
Clegg et al. (2006) argue that those conceptualizations of power that were most influential
prior to Foucault’s period of influence draw on the Hobbesian sovereign – and agencyorientated – conceptualizations of power. Central to this notion of power is that power holders
have power over those who lack power and, consequently, that power is in the hands of
certain people or institutions. An examination following such a conceptualization of power
focuses on the ‘what’ of power; for example what people in the name of power do against
their will or the shift of power from one power holder to another.
Lukes (1974) distinguishes between three types of sovereign power. Lukes’s (1974:15 and 1112, emphasis taken away) first dimension of power ‘involves a focus on behavior in the
making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of (subjective)
interests’ formalized as: ‘A has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something
that B would not otherwise do’. Lukes’s (1974) second dimension of power focuses on nondecision-making and particularly on how limiting the scope of the decision-making process
through ‘reinforcing [certain] social and political values and institutional practices’ (Bachrach
and Baratz 1962, quoted in Lukes 1974:16) enables to control the agenda in situations of overt
conflict. The third dimension of power that Lukes discusses includes covert use of power and
the role that social structures and socialization have for action. Through controlling the
socialization process, Lukes (1974) argues that power holders wield power over the formation
of identities in societies. Accordingly, Lukes’s framework of power emphasizes agency:
through different means, individual or collective actors have power over other individuals or
collectives. As we will see this characteristic – together with his materialist ontology and
positivistic epistemology – differentiates Lukes’s conceptualization of power from Foucault’s.
Power/knowledge
Foucault (1977; 1981; Burrell 1988) rejects treating power as a commodity or as coupled to
an agency. Rather, he argues that, from the enlightenment onwards, i.e. during modernity,
power has taken discursive shape – power is invested in discourse. The discourses that power
is embedded in are forms of knowledge. Foucault thus postulates a break with positivistic
epistemology and materialist ontology, which is a defining feature for modernist social and
behavioural sciences. Foucault argues that scientific knowledge (e.g. psychology) is the
example par excellence of discourses invested with power. Foucault (1977; 1981) stipulates a
close coupling between power and knowledge/truth and therefore prefers not to speak about
power and knowledge but rather about power/knowledge in order to emphasize the
interrelatedness between the two. This fundamental re-conceptualization turns ‘scientific’
discourse, academic marketing in the case of this paper, into the very object of study not the
ending result of the study.
In Foucault’s view, the discourses and the power/knowledge that the social and behavioural
sciences produce not only represent the world but also produce the world: they are
performative. And since the object of knowledge of theses sciences is the human being, they
explicitly or implicitly seek to shape the subjectivity of people by fabricating certain subject
positions. When studying discourses of ‘truth’ Foucault thus did not focus on what was true
and what was not. Rather he focused on what possibilities ‘truth’ gave to people in
constructing the social world and what effects ‘truth’ had on to the social world and
particularly on the subjectivity of the people acting in this world (Foucault 1977; 1981; 1985).
The behavioural and social sciences seen from this perspective are thus not bodies of
‘abstracted theories and explanations, but…intellectual technolog[ies]…way[s] of making
visible and intelligible certain features of persons, their conducts, and their relations with one
another’ (Rose 1996:10-11).
Technologies and practices
What is inherent to regimes of power/knowledge is not only subject positions, but also
technologies and practices for producing subjectivity. It is a central aim of our analysis to
articulate the most important such technologies and practices that marketing promotes at
different periods in time. Following Rose (1996) we define these types of technologies as
human technologies. We understand (human) technologies in management discourse as
detailed, often standardized examinations and methods (customer satisfaction measurement
models, work place attitude schemes, profit sharing but also ‘softer devices’ such as corporate
culturalism, mentoring, career development discussion, etc.) that promote a certain type of
control of human behaviour. In marketing, these technologies are often not in themselves
framed as control devices by those who promote and use them but rather as neutral tools for
‘getting the job done’. Technologies presuppose certain assumptions about human beings.
These assumptions build on knowledge that is considered true, which infuses the technologies
with power.
Practices are less detailed prescriptions regarding how things should be done or descriptions
regarding how things should be acted upon, thought and felt about, but they work in the same
way as technologies. The distinction between practices and technologies is rather blurred.
Practices may be produced by and may produce technologies, but practices may also lack a
‘technological foundation’. In such cases they may be regarded as specifications of broader
ideals (Hasselbladh and Kallinikos 2000). The technologies of the self that are inherent in
most other technologies and practices are the confession and the examination (Foucault 1977;
1997; Townley 1998) which will be discussed in relation to pastoral and disciplinary power
below.
Pastoral power as opposed to disciplinary power
As we pointed out above, forms of power/knowledge differ from sovereign power in several
ways. But there also exist more specific differences between the two distinct forms of
power/knowledge, pastoral power and disciplinary power. Firstly, the pastor wields power
over a collective of people rather than over a land or an organization. Pastoral power is thus
based on a conceptualization of human beings as unique subjects with specific needs and
wants and not as objects. Secondly, the pastor gathers together, guides and leads this
collective. The object of pastoral power is thus the management of people by the pastor, who
manages through her/his inner qualities which are superior to the inner qualities of the flock.
Thirdly, in line with the religious metaphor, the objective of this power is to secure individual
‘salvation’ in the present world. Salvation takes on worldly meanings such as richness, health
and self-fulfilment. Accordingly, Foucault (2000a) argues that pastoral power operates
through a constant kindness vis-à-vis it subjects rather than a constant submission. This means
that pastoral power is always dependent on an implicit or explicit ethic since the kindness it
promotes has to be qualified. Therefore pastoral power is instrumental: through making
people believe in a value system and through giving them rewards that are in compliance with
it (and thus their beliefs), pastoral power will make people reproduce the rationality of the
value system. In this way people are being governed without noticing it. Contemporary liberal
and conservative governmental discourse has been analyzed as a form of pastoral power (see
Dean 1995; 1999; Hodgson 2002; Rose 1996; 1999). These forms of government which have
been named ‘advanced liberal government’ and ‘neoliberal government’ foster the attainment
of specific goals and values, such as health, richness, status and position, which thus become
the object and aim of management informed by pastoral power. Such value builds up the
normative ethos summarized in the nodal point of liberalism: freedom. Pastoral power in
liberal discourse thus becomes a management of free people and their freedom through their
freedom (Rose 1999).
Finally, pastoral power is dependent upon knowing the individuals’ innermost thoughts in
order to direct and lead them. In order to accomplish this, pastoral power depends upon the
production of technologies and practices for making individuals talk about themselves and
their innermost thoughts: it is dependent on confessional techniques. That is why modern
social and behavioural sciences, quasi-sciences and expertise’s have been given the role of
developing such techniques. Obvious examples include psychoanalysis and counselling in the
discourse of psychology (Rose 1996; 1999), self-assessment in Total Quality Management
discourse and customer perceived quality measurement techniques in marketing (Skålén and
Fougère 2007). Through the outwardly confessional speech that these technologies stimulate
it is possible to provide the kindness that the pastor – through the mediation of ethics such as
liberalism and conservatism – believes is appropriate for his flock. But the technologies also
become means of control since the pastor can know and decide if the sheep will be happy or
not by continuing to live the same way they do. The type of freedom that liberal and
conservative discourse of government promotes, for example, is not an unconditional
freedom. Rather, it is a freedom that promotes integration into a particular liberal society: it is
not anarchy. It fosters healthy and working subjects that can realize their freedom and
themselves through consumption, physical exercise and education – not unhealthy and
unproductive subjects dependent on welfare services. This type of discourse thus fosters
‘active’ rather than passive subjects (see Dean 1995; Rose 1999). As Rose (1999: 4) argues,
‘when it comes to governing human beings, to govern is to presuppose the freedom of the
governed. To govern humans is not to crush their capacity to act, but to acknowledge it and
utilize it for one’s own objectives’. Thus by acting on her/his flock the pastor can change it
and thereby provide salvation and happiness to the people.
But the confessing subject will also act on her/himself. When speaking about themselves they
will reveal to themselves what types of persons they are ‘since the speaking subject is the
subject of the statement’ (Foucault 1985, quoted in Covaleski et al. 1998: 297) and if they are
not satisfied, a satisfaction that is defined by the pastor informed by an external ethic, they
will try to change themselves. Change is manifested in the speech through avowal.
Confessional speech will thus not only serve as a device of control for who the person is but
also as an indicator for who s/he becomes. Through series of confessions and avowals the
person will move from one subject position to another. Discourses of pastoral power
encourage such confessions and avowals. In this paper we examine if and to what extent
marketing has become such a discourse.
Pastoral power is thus a power that defines identity from the inside out (Covaleski et al.,
1998). Foucault (1977; 2000a) differentiated it from another form of power/knowledge:
disciplinary power. The distinction between these two kinds of power is, however, far from
clear-cut in Foucault’s work even though some distinct differences can be noted. Disciplinary
power is a micro power that targets individuals, while pastoral power focuses on the collective
or on the individual as a part of the collective. The operation of disciplinary power is
dependent on the norm, which is embedded in different types of discourse and disciplines;
scientific, quasi-scientific and expertise (Dean 1995; 1999; Rose 1999). The practices and
technologies promoted by these types of discourse function as examinations, which Foucault
(1977) sees as the ‘technology of the self’ associated with individuation through
objectification (Foucault 1977; 2000a; see also Covaleski et al. 1998). Through examinations,
people’s actions become visible and detectable and thus known objectively, ‘exemplified by
the employee’s reduction to a final score as, for example, graphic rating scales, or overall
scores at an assessment center’ (Townley 1993:535). As an effect examinations also reveal
gaps between actuality and possibility, between the person’s present state and the norm. This
enables management and intervention of people by themselves or others and fosters a
movement towards the norm. By closing these gaps between the actual self and the ideal self
the person becomes subjectified.
In this paper we explicate what practices and technologies marketing research have produced
for accomplishing subjectification through acting upon people’s actions and we do not focus
on the result of such processes. This means that we look upon technologies such as targeting,
customer perceived quality, segmentation, etc. from a completely different angle compared to
mainstream marketing. Rather than contributing to developing these technologies as is the
focus in mainstream marketing research we focus on what type of managerialism it
presupposes and thus the possibilities it gives to people in constructing themselves as workers
or managers. This also implies a position in which forms of knowledge do not determine the
subjectivity of people: we do not intend to determine whether marketing discourse ‘actually’
fixates a particular subjectivity. Rather, we aim to pinpoint the type of subjectivity that
marketing discourse attributes to managers and personnel and how – through what
technologies and practices – this is meant to be done.
Analysis
In this section we will focus on the type of managerialism that marketing has promoted and
the power that has dominated articulations of marketing at different periods in time. We will
do this by drawing on the distinction between sovereign power, pastoral power and
disciplinary power as outlined above. Based on previous studies of the marketing discipline
and its managerialism we make a distinction between: 1) the marketing thought articulated
before the launch of the marketing concept in the late 1950’s; 2) the tradition of research
labeled marketing management structured by the marketing concept; and 3) service
management which emerged in marketing at the end of 1970’s. Marketing management and
service management changed and elaborated on previous articulations of the managerialism of
marketing and also marked changes in the type of power promoted by marketing.
A disciplinary project
In mainstream academic marketing discourse it is often believed that marketing thought
before marketing management was descriptive and non managerialistic (see Keith 1960;
Levitt 1960; Vargo and Lusch 2004; Webster 1992). A surface reading of marketing research
before 1950 will support this claim. The functional, institutional and commodity approaches
which were central articulations of marketing discourse back then focused on describing their
objects of study. An explicit managerialism in academic marketing discourse is thus hard to
detect from a literal reading of the mainstream back then. However, a less literal reading
reveals a different picture: both mainstream texts from the three approaches and some texts
inspired by scientific management can be considered, implicitly and in some cases explicitly,
as managerial, and the link between these texts and what was later to be labeled marketing
management can be seen as quite clear.
If the mainstream texts of the three dominating approaches in early marketing research are
read less literally it is certainly possible to argue that they promote a certain kind of
normativity that can be used to further managerialism. Describing marketing institutions,
functions and commodities certainly satisfies a managerial interest rather than a worker
interest. By describing central marketing phenomena on an aggregated level, the three early
schools provided managers with an overview of them and served the purpose to inform
managerial action and decision-making. But it can also be argued that they provided practices
for the managers to describe and analyze their own organizations including their environment
by drawing on them: they fuelled certain types of examinations. Describing and examining
the reality, whether it is on the macro, the meso or the micro level, is an act of objectification
and objectifications create norms: for example, the marketing functions that an organization
should have become the underlying text of such descriptions. It can thus be maintained that
this ‘descriptive’ approach to marketing promotes disciplinary power, which is dependent
upon the norm in order to operate and be effective (Foucault 1977). But not only upon the
norm though: equally important is that it is a ‘true’ norm, that is, a norm that is legitimated by
scientific, pseudo-scientific or expert discourse (see Rose 1996). To a large extent, academic
marketing discourse was providing such norms from the beginning. When the ‘true’ norm has
been established through description with a scientific flavour it becomes natural to compare
the actual design of the particular department, organization or organizational field with the
norm. Such comparisons will reveal gaps between actuality and ideal. Disciplinary power is
precisely aimed at closing such gaps between the factual and the norm (Foucault 1977). When
these gaps have been made visible to managers it is very likely that they try to change the
status quo. This might include introducing new forms of work routines that in the end might
affect the subjectivity of workers. We thus believe that it is more adequate to portray this
research as providing examinations which managers could use to further their managerialistic
agendas rather then seeing it as merely descriptive.
The three early schools largely developed in parallel, and could not really be considered
articulations of marketing as a whole but rather isolated articulations of different parts of the
problem. It can be argued that none of the three schools really had the potential to become
hegemonic within the emerging marketing discourse. One reason why the three traditional
schools failed to be convincing as articulations of marketing as a whole is that in all three
schools, the consumer / customer, while a central reference point, was conceptualized as
rather passive. One important reason behind this was that the inspiration for the three
approaches was chiefly based on economic principles and took very little into consideration
organizational, social and psychological variables (see Sheth et al. 1988).
If we turn to the explicit managerial texts of early marketing we can detect an even clearer
shift from sovereign to disciplinary power. What we have in mind is the introduction of
scientific management (very much a disciplinary project, see Clegg et al. 2006) into
marketing. Scientific management was merged with marketing in the teaching at Harvard
business school from the 1910’s. In academic texts on marketing scientific management
surfaced in the work of Art Shaw, the founder of the institutional approach and a Harvard
faculty member, at this time (Shaw 1951[1915]). Besides the ambitious – but seemingly not
widely acknowledged as influential – works of White (1927), the most elaborated use of
scientific management in marketing discourse was its diffusion into sales management from
the beginning of the 1910’s (see Hoyt 1929[1912]). Selling, which traditionally had be seen as
an ‘art’ and thus an ability that some people were born with while others were not turned into
an ability that could be ‘scientifically’ studied, controlled, developed and managed. This latter
perspective on selling dominated managerial academic marketing discourse and the practice
of selling from the 1930’s – when it was claimed that the economic crisis made it necessary
for corporations to act in a more rational way – to the 1950’s (Cochoy 1999; Fligstein 1990).
The types of technologies that were recommended for studying and controlling the salesmen
can be seen as examinations, the technology of the self that Foucault (1977) associated with
disciplinary power and thus individuation through objectification. The control practices that
were recommended included setting sales quotas, training, compensations, stimulating
practices, supervisions and evaluations that were technified through using concealed
microphones and mystery shoppers, the recording of salesmen’s travelling times and the
measurement of their foot travels with pedometers. These technologies were aimed to
establish norms for how and who the salesman should be, compare actual working salesmen
with these norms and change them and their subjectivity in accordance with the norm. The
scientific management project in marketing was explicitly aimed to direct a ‘mental
revolution’ for the salesmen and the sales managers (Hoyt 1929:21). It is thus a managerial
project based on disciplinary power. It is also possible to find manifestations of sovereign
power in early marketing discourse even though we would argue that the discourse on
scientific selling signifies a shift of emphasis from sovereign power to disciplinary power.
Hoyt (1929[1912]: 10-11) articulated two sales manager subject positions: the ‘old fashioned’
that believed in securing results through his own ‘sheer force’ and ‘brute strength’ and the
‘new’ type that believed in ‘method’, that is in the scientific management method. We would
argue that the former, ‘outdated’ type of sales manager relies on sovereign power and the
latter type on disciplinary power. This argument is possible to make if the two types of power
are related to the two types of subject positions along a few central dimensions that
differentiate sovereign power from disciplinary power. We also think that the argument can
be made since this scientific management articulation can account for changes in the general
structure of power in managerial marketing discourse at the time.
As discussed above, central to the sovereign theory of power is that power is in the hands of
someone while disciplinary power is embedded in discourse. The statement about the ‘oldfashioned’ type of sales manager can be interpreted as though it is the sales manager that has
power (of the ‘sovereign’ type) over the salesman. It can also be argued that the subject
position of the ‘new’ sales manager was articulated as relying on the power/knowledge
embedded in scientific management in order to control the salesman. Furthermore, the ‘new’
sales manager can be seen as normalized by the power/knowledge of scientific management,
since s/he valued the rationality of these kinds of control technologies.
A second distinction between sovereign power and disciplinary power is that the former is
advocated upon issues of overt conflict and is accordingly dependent on its visibility in order
to have effect but allows those over whom it is exercised to remain in the shades. The latter
imposes a principle of compulsory visibility to those who are objectified by and subjected to it
but is in itself invisible. Foucault makes this point very clearly in Discipline and Punish:
It is the fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be seen, that maintains the
disciplined individual in his subjection. And the examination is the technique by which
power…instead of imposing its mark on its subjects [as sovereign power do], holds them
in a mechanism of objectification.
(Foucault, 1977:187)
The articulation of the subject position of the ‘old fashioned’ sales manager presupposes that
there is an overt conflict between the manager and the salesman. By the manager using his
‘brute strength’ and ‘sheer force’ his power will become visible to each and everyone and this
visibility is in fact the raison d'être for his use of power since force and strength must be
visible in order to exist and have effect. Through imposing his mark, the sales manager will
be able to lead. The ‘new’ sales manager on the other hand uses the power/knowledge
embedded in technologies imported from scientific management. These technologies are
seldom made visible in themselves. In fact the technologies associated with scientific
management are defined by their invisibility, e.g. concealed microphones and mystery
shoppers. The power of the disciplinary practices themselves, such as training, compensating
and setting sales quotas are also invisible: they are never framed as forms of power.
The third and last distinction between sovereign and disciplinary power that we use to
position the two subject positions in relation to each other has to do with the means and
effects of power. Sovereign power operates through coercion and makes people do things
against their will: it is repressive. Disciplinary power operates through examinations
embedded in discourse and subjectifies: it can repress and empower. The defining feature of
Hoyt’s ‘old’ sales manager is that he relies on force in order to get the salesman to do what he
wants. It is thus possible to see him as an expression of sovereign power. But why does he
have to rely on force? The answer to this question we find in the view that Hoyt believes that
this type of manager has of salesmen – and perhaps employees in general – as obstructing,
opposing and battling the will of the manager. Therefore, the sales manager has to use
coercion in order to control them. The ‘fashionable’ sales manager on the other hand relies on
the disciplinary power of scientific management. The technologies of this power do not only
repress but also empower. Attaining sales quotas for the salesman for instance might imply
repression by being demanded to work harder then s/he originally planned to. But it may also
empower the salesman with prestige and bonuses. Furthermore, working hard may mean
developing a ‘selling attitude’, which empowers the salesman in her/his professional role. But
why does the ‘new’ sales manager rely on the examinations embedded in scientific
management discourse rather than coercion? Again, we must deduct the answer from the
implicit view of the salesman that informs the subject position of the ‘new’ sales manager.
This subject position posits salesmen not as explicitly obstructive but rather as idle,
unenterprising and passive. By gathering information about the very details of the salesman’s
physical and mental expressions it will be possible to control and direct her/him through
detailed instructions – compare the classic description of Schmidt in Taylor (1911). This
objectification of the salesman that these technologies of control are designed to produce may
eventually result in a salesman that is framed by, and takes for granted the scientific discourse
on selling, thus behaving in accordance with it without noticing it.
It is thus plausible to interpret Hoyt’s ‘old’ sales manager as an expression of sovereign power
and his ‘new’ sales manager as an expression of disciplinary power. But it is also possible to
treat the former as an expression of the general managerialistic marketing discourse that went
out of fashion in both academic and practicing quarters during the 1930’s when the scientific
discourse on selling started to dominate (Cochoy 1998; Fligstein 1990). The subject positions
that have been the object of our analysis thus have implications for managerial marketing
discourse in general and not only selling discourse. It is thus our view that there was a turning
point in the foundation of the managerialism of marketing when scientific management was
imported into it in the 1910’s and 20’s. Accordingly we can argue that the managerialism of
marketing during the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s was founded on a disciplinary conceptualization
of power even though it would be exaggerated to argue that sovereign power ceased to exist.
In fact it is quite possible to interpret the scientific selling discourse and some of its practices
as relying on sovereign power and not only disciplinary power. In the scientific selling
discourse as well as in scientific management, the manager subject position can and should
force people to do what the management orders them to do even if this is against their will. A
particular example would be the practice of using sales quotas. By referring to them the sales
manager can force the salesman to work longer hours in order to fulfill his sales quotas by
threatening with negative economic consequences if refusing. But the sovereign power in
scientific selling is framed by and legitimated through ‘truth’ and thus power/knowledge. We
thus contend not only that marketing discourse was managerialistic at a time when
mainstream versions of its history believed it was anti-managerial (see Keith 1960; Kotler
1967; Levitt 1960; Vargo and Lusch 2004; Webster 1992) but also that marketing experienced
a turning point in its managerialism at this time.
This turning point was largely brought about by the ‘scientific approach’ to sales
management. In this approach the customer became more central than in previous
articulations, paving the way for ‘customerism’. Indeed, it became part of the mission of sales
management to assess consumer and customer needs through valid methods of market
research and to train salespeople to be ‘customer-interested’ - i.e. to use results of market
research in their selling practice, and to not rely chiefly on ‘selling skills’ in order to persuade
by ‘petty means’ but rather to try to find out what customers need before going about the sale
itself. This is how a customer-driven governmental rationality came to characterize the
dominant articulation of selling.
An ethical project
Through the launch of the marketing concept in the marketing management, marketing was
turned into a unified managerialistic discourse. Even though the managerialism of customer
orientation had been present in the earlier period it was articulated in a more forceful and
rhetorically convincing way during marketing management and diffused in marketing
discourse. However, the technologies developed to turn the marketing concept and its
‘customerism’ into practice – primarily market segmentation, targeting and the concept of the
marketing mix – did not have the inbuilt capacity to control employees extensively. Rather,
they emphasized how to regulate the relationship between the market and the organization.
We would even argue that the technologies associated with the marketing concept had less
potential to control employees than the technologies associated with scientific selling.
Marketing management thus elaborated on the ethics of managerial marketing but failed to
develop technologies for realizing it. However, we see the elaboration on customerism that
was introduced during that period as managerial marketing discourse moving away from
promoting disciplinary power to promoting a neoliberal form of pastoral power. We will now
explicate this argument.
Pastoral power is dependent on economics and the role it gives to the population and
organizations in creating wealth and progress. The formation of marketing as an academic
discipline was very much influenced by economics but different discourses of economics
suggest particular and somewhat contradicting governmental rationalities. The functional and
the commodity approaches to marketing were influenced by the German historical school of
economics which was articulated as a reaction to classical liberal economics. The latter was
among other things accused for being unable to address the poverty that the industrialization
gave rise to and therefore the former granted state intervention a more significant role in the
economy compared to classical economics. On the other hand it is possible to argue that
marketing management and earlier managerial articulations of marketing – customeristic
articulations of marketing in general – were more influenced by classical liberal economics.
The central idea of the customerism of the marketing concept, for example, is precisely that
organizations should produce what the free market ‘orders’ them to produce. One prime goal
for the marketing academia during the marketing management period thus became to develop
the practices and the technologies that allowed organizations to collect information about the
market and thus was not anymore to describe the functions, institutions and commodities
characterizing it. Accordingly, articulating the marketing concept is dependent on the
existence of a free market and is at the same time supportive of the idea of a free market. The
marketing concept is thus supportive of the idea that people are able to realize their freedom
in the market place and thus that the market is a good system for distributing and creating
health, wealth and status. This formula is very clearly articulated by Kotler in one of his
articles on broadening the marketing concept.
The core concern for marketing is that of producing desired responses in free individuals
by the judicious creation and offering of values. The marketer is attempting to get value
from the market through offering value to it. The marketer’s problem is to create attractive
values. Value is completely subjective and exists in the eyes of the beholding market.
Marketers must understand the market in order to be effective in creating value. This is the
essential meaning of the marketing concept.
(Kotler 1972:50)
Marketing management thus presupposes and promotes a liberal and customeristic
governmental ethic. In addition, we would argue that marketing management discourse
presupposes that organizations should be managed in accordance with this liberal
customeristic ethic. The pioneers of marketing management all emphasized this. McKitterick
(1957: 78) for example argued that ‘the marketing function’ has to be ‘skilful in conceiving
and then making the business do what suits the interests of the customer’, Levitt (1960: 56)
argued ‘that the entire corporation must be viewed as a customer-creating and customersatisfying organism’ and Keith (1960: 37) that (customer-driven) ‘marketing permeates the
entire organization’. As we have argued previously, however, the technologies promoted in
marketing management discourse were not really designed to achieve this. Therefore we
argue that marketing management and the articulation of the marketing concept turned
marketing into a definite customeristic ethical project but that its managerial technologies
were not founded on this ethic and were thus not able to turn the marketing concept into
practice. Therefore marketing management did not turn marketing into a pastoral project but it
prepared for such a shift.
A pastoral project
The elaboration, institutionalization and hegemonization of customeristic ethics in marketing
discourse accomplished in the marketing management period informed the pastoral project
that managerial marketing was turned into in service management. The pioneers of service
management argued that service industries had not integrated marketing into their
management because mainstream marketing offered no guidance, terminology or practical
rules that were clearly relevant to services. The main reason given for this was that services
differ from products. Most importantly for the managerialism of service management,
consumption and production of services take place simultaneously (Shostack 1977). These
lead service management scholars in the beginning of the 1980’s to launch the cardinal idea
that customer perceived quality in service organizations is a function not only of what is
offered in the market. It is equally important to consider how this is done by the employees in
the service encounter (see previous chapter and Grönroos 1984). This profound insight
repositioned the object of the managerialism of marketing from focusing on producing rules
for informing decisions about product, price, place and promotion to manufacturing the ‘right’
employees.
The articulation of service management was nevertheless dependent in a fundamental way on
the customerism that marketing management had articulated and manifested. This is seldom
acknowledged by service management scholars who usually position service management as
being in sharp contrast to marketing management. One important reason behind this is that
service management scholars have sought to institutionalize and legitimize their own
discipline (see Berry and Parasuraman 1993; Brown et al. 1994; Grönroos 1994). As we see
it, service management scholars have been involved in a ‘discursive war’ aimed to give
service management a position as the hegemonic managerial marketing discourse. The prime
‘enemy’ has been marketing management which, in line with Shostack’s (1977) argument, is
believed to be lacking approaches for managing service firms. But this ‘war’ has really been
fought in a Don Quichottian way since the ‘enemy’ has never really fought back: maybe the
marketing management elite (Phillip Kotler, Theodore Levitt, Shelby D. Hunt among others)
never really have felt the ‘threat’ or maybe they have not understood what the ‘fight’ was
about in the first place since the goal of promoting customerism has been shared by service
management and marketing management scholars. The critical judgment of marketing
management in service management discourse must be seen as what Marion (2006; see also
Hackley 2003), in his analysis of marketing ideology, has called the ‘rhetoric of a project’:
service management scholars depreciate the discourse of marketing management despite the
characteristics that their work shares with it in order to legitimize and make a space for
pursuing their own agenda – and of course their own research careers and articles. For it is
indeed the case that service management discourse is founded on the customerism of the
marketing concept. It takes this rationality for granted.
This is not to say, however, that service management did not problematize marketing
management and further the rationality of customerism. Service management discourse, as
opposed to marketing management discourse is more focused on managing the ‘human
factor’. In service management discourse, every organizational member needs, according to
the ‘part-time marketer’ subject position, to be controlled in depth. In order to manage the
‘how’ of services and thus the service worker, several measurement and control technologies
were developed which embody the governmental rationality of service management. One
important such technology is the gap-model presented in chapter six (see also Skålén and
Fougère 2007). Others include corporate culturalism, team work, customer relationship
management, customer satisfaction measurement, cognitive maps, empowerment, personnel
development discussion, mentoring and coaching. Models such as these are not usually
perceived as control technologies within marketing itself, but controlling the personnel is
really their final objective. By analyzing the process of developing the gap-model, which
embodies the general spirit and rationality of service management, we will claim that service
management discourse is founded on pastoral power and that the disciplinary power and
sovereign power that it also fosters are recast to serve bio-political aims.
In developing the gap model Parasuraman et al. (1985) made 12 focus groups interviews with
American service firms representing four service categories – retail banking, credit card
provision, securities brokerage, and product repair and maintenance – and carried out 14
personal interviews with executives of the firms (three or four from each firm). The aim of the
interviews was to derive so called ‘general quality determinants’ able to explain variances in
service quality across organizations. The result was the generation of five quality
determinants (see Parasuraman et al. 1985; 1988; 1994): reliability, responsiveness, empathy,
assurance and tangibles. Parasuraman and his colleagues position their research as
positivistic/functionalistic and thus argue that they generate knowledge that is general,
objective and adequately describes the material reality. Accordingly they see the quality
determinants as general, meaning that they are allegedly able to explain variances in service
quality for all organizations regardless of trade, national culture, etc. Even though alternative
technologies for measuring customer perceived service quality have been introduced the
procedure for generating knowledge applied by Parasuraman et al. (1985) has been considered
as legitimate for generating scientific truth since the gap-model has been widely accepted
within the field. This may seem a bit surprising since the sample from a strict positivistic
point of view must be considered as far too limited and culturally biased to generalize from.
However, if one considers how the bulk of the research within mainstream marketing is
conducted it must be concluded that it suffers from similar problems: limited US-based
samples are claimed to explain variances for the factor focused across the globe. It is quite
telling that this problem is virtually never reflected upon in mainstream marketing. Here, we
will analyze the implications of this research style from a power/knowledge perspective.
Since inductive methods were used for developing the gap-model, the gap-model and
particularly the five ‘general’ quality determinants that are at its foundation can be considered
to be a product of the dominating US social and economic ontology at a particular time in
history, namely the early 1980’s. At this time Ronald Reagan was president of the USA. His
presidency is known for drastic cuts in welfare programs, a general dismantling of the already
limited (at least to European standards) welfare state, a heavier reliance on the deregulated
market economy and on governing the population through civil society. Reagan’s politics is
usually considered as relying on neoliberalism for regulating the economy and neoconservatism for regulating the social. The American freedom rhetoric was emphasized
during this period. This ‘liberal’ type of freedom is a very specific type. It is not about the
simple idea of freedom meaning that people can do whatever they want. Rather, it is a
freedom that is a product of liberal and conservative ethics (Dean 1995; 1999; Rose 1996;
1999). It is thus a governed and controlled freedom, a governmentality (Foucault 2000b). As
Rose (1999) has shown, ‘advanced’ liberal governmentality fosters ‘productive’ and ‘active’
citizens that contribute to economic performance as defined by liberalism. ‘Productive’ may
mean healthy, socially competent, emotionally stable, intelligent and/or good-looking workers
all dependent on trade; and ‘active’ means that they see themselves as enterprising selves. In
compensation for being productive and active, workers are paid a salary, which they are
expected to use in order to realize their ‘freedom’ through acts of consumption in a liberal
society. Since the market economy is regulated by liberal economic discourse consumption is
also defined by liberal values. Citizens are thus both governed by and through freedom.
This type of freedom has strong traditions in the US and the gap-model was developed at a
time when it really was emphasized. We thus think that the gap-model – and indeed service
management discourse in general since the gap-model encapsulates its spirit – can be pictured
as a form of advanced liberal ethic for the service sector – and if we should believe some
service management scholars as a management ethos for all organizations (Grönroos 2007;
Vargo and Lusch 2004) – and not as a scientific truth. (Service) workers who are empathetic,
reliable, responsive and who express assurance are valued by an advanced liberal society and
those workers are accordingly valued by the organizations that typically exist in such a
society. Thus, by behaving in the way promoted by service management, workers are
accepted and rewarded and are in turn enabled to pursue their freedom which makes them
more integrated in society. For free persons constitute the core in liberal societies. Basing the
management of people in accordance with the quality determinants of the gap-model implies
managing them through and by their freedom. The process of generating the quality
determinants provides our first argument that the gap-model is based on a neoliberal version
of pastoral power. But this argument is not sufficient for claiming that the gap-model
promotes and is embedded in pastoral power. In order to be able to demonstrate that, we also
need to show that how it intends to manage people follows the scheme of pastoral power.
Managing with the gap-model does not mean that the ‘general’ quality determinants should be
maximized for each individual service worker. Rather, the level of expressiveness that is
demanded of the employees by a particular organization and even departments has to be
established through using the gap-model. Parasuraman et al. (1988) developed a questionnaire
making the five quality determinants operative. The questionnaire consists of 22 items. The
same questions are used to measure customer expectations and perceptions about the service
delivery that they have experienced. The question that operationalizes empathy for example
thus measures if the personnel expresses too much or too little empathy during the service
encounter. Suggestions are then given on how to change the workers’ behaviours so that their
service delivery accords with customers demands. Thus, the aim of the gap-model is to fine
tune people’s expressed feelings and values in accordance with neoliberal discourse. For it is
indeed the case that the gap-model targets subjectivity. Four of the five quality determinants
are central human characteristics. By fine tuning their empathy the persons will get positive
feedback, increase their ability of being promoted, earn more money, get more prestige and
have a better position. This makes them freer by being more integrated in the liberal society
and makes them more apt to fulfil there dreams and hopes. This also serves the organization
and the economy as a whole and thus contributes to govern the service worker.
The gap-model also fosters a management from ‘the inside out’ and self-regulation, central
features of pastoral power. Through asking the customers how they perceive the service
delivery and by basing these questions upon personnel characteristics of the service workers,
the gap-model makes the innermost feelings known to the manager (that is, the pastor) and the
service workers themselves. This gives impetus for the pastor/manager to change his flock of
service workers so that their subjectivities accord better with the demands of their particular
customers, or if the expectations are already in line with the perceptions of the customers, to
reproduce their behaviours. But this also shows to the service workers themselves who they
are and who they should be thus giving impetus to self-regulation. By displaying gaps the
gap-model fosters confessions and thus people avowing to themselves and their managers
who they are and how they should be: ‘I am like this but I should be like that’. This not only
gives further impetus to the change of subjectivity from the inside out by fostering people to
becoming more or less emphatic and responsible. But it also serves as a means for checking
when people have changed themselves since the persons are the subjects of their avowals.
When this process operates for a long time a collective common culture informed by service
management values is aimed to be developed. Corporate culture stimulates self-referential and
reflexive government by people reflecting themselves and who they are in the common values
(Clegg et al. 2002). Empirical research within (Gebhart et al. 2006) and outside (Covaleski et
al. 1998) marketing have shown that corporate cultures can be effective in accomplishing the
intended result, i.e. a more or less responsive, empathetic and/or adaptable employee.
Marketing is thus redefined as pastoral power in service management. Rather than about
management forcing unwanted subjectivities upon free people who are likely to resist, it is
about changing people in line with their free will. For marketing conceptualizes humans as
free. This is not unique to marketing. It is a conceptualization of human beings that it shares
with other academic disciplines informed by neoliberalism, the most prominent example
being psychology (Rose 1999). But conceptualizing employees as free is really an oxymoron .
The theory of identity underlying modernistic social science is historically contingent and a
product of Western liberal and conservative values. In Western societies’ institutions, such as
schools, hospitals, jails, kindergartens, examples abound showing that the prime aim is to
develop this free identity that modernistic social science takes for granted. The ‘liberal-free’
person is thus not a ‘genuinely free’ person, but rather a programmed, normalized person.
S/he is a product of the social. A free person is not outside society; rather, those who are
inside society are by definition free. What marketing thus intends to do to people is to control
them more thoroughly by embedding them more deeply in the neoliberal society. This serves
the persons’ personal goals of becoming free individuals by learning to play the citizen game
better, thereby gaining status, money and esteem so that they can do more things within the
boundaries of the regulated society. But this also serves the goals of the organizations and the
society at large which in return will have hard-working and docile bodies that fulfil the goals
of political economy through constantly striving for economic profitability. Managerial
marketing is thus primarily an ethic that fosters management of freedom, through freedom –
not a science.
We thus would argue that service management promotes pastoral power. But this does not
imply that service management does not promote disciplinary and sovereign power also. In
service management they have been rearticulated to serve bio-political aims. The gap-model
for example can be seen as promoting disciplinary power. Through the measurement of
customer expectations, norms are set up for employee behaviour. By also measuring
perceptions of service delivery, the norm can be compared with actual behaviour. This makes
possible the corrections of human beings in accordance with the norm. The gap-model thus
functions as an examination, aiming to individuate the service worker through objectification.
It thus subjectifies from the outside in as well as from the inside out. But this subjectification
through objectification is framed by the rationality of liberalism. It is also possible to see
expressions of sovereign power in service management. The executives are for example the
ones granted with the power to change organizations in line with service management
prerogatives. But since these prerogatives are a function of neoliberal ethics, the sovereign
power is also framed by liberalism.
Conclusions and contributions
In this paper we have analyzed marketing theory as a form of power. We have shown that
marketing was based on a certain type of power and promoted power and thus was managerial
already at a time which today tends to be seen in retrospect by mainstream marketing scholars
as descriptive and anti-managerial. We have also shown that the power of marketing has
emphasized different types of power at different point in times. As we have argued it is not a
replacement though but rather a shift of emphasis. Based on this analysis we have been able to
position marketing’s managerialism more clearly: 1) as based on disciplinary power in the
first period; 2) as an ethic in marketing management; and 3) as a form of neo-liberal pastoral
power in service management. Seeing power as being the foundational concept of marketing
research in this way rearticulates and positions marketing more clearly as a managerial
discourse rather than a positivistic science and thus contributes to Critical Marketing
Research, especially that which is meant to examine the managerialism of marketing, along
Alvesson and Willmott’s (1996) and Morgan’s (2003) suggestions. Lastly, we have argued
that the power of marketing promotes customerism and that this managerial rationality has
been articulated as an effect of the power base of marketing (see Skålén et al. 2006).
References
Alvesson, M., and Willmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of Management: A Critical
Introduction, London: Sage.
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S. (1962) ‘The Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science
Review, 56 (4): 947-52.
Bartels, R. (1962) The Development of Marketing Thought, Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1993) ‘Building a New Academic Field: The Case of
Services Marketing’, Journal of Retailing, 69 (1): 13-61.
Brown, S.W., Fisk, R.P., and Bitner, M.J. (1994) ‘The Development and Emergence of
Services Marketing Thought’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5 (1),
21-48.
Burrell, G. (1988) ‘Modernism, Post-Modernism and Organizational Analysis 2: The
Contribution of Michel Foucault’, Organization Studies, 9(2): 221-36.
Clegg, S.R., Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. (2006) Power and Organizations, London: Sage.
Clegg, S.R., Pitsis, T.S., Rura-Polley, T., and Marosszeky, M. (2002) ‘Governmentality
Matters: Designing an Alliance of Inter-organizational Collaboration for Managing Projects’,
Organization Studies, 23 (3): 317-37.
Cochoy, F. (1998) ‘Another Discipline for the Market Economy: Marketing as a
Performative Knowledge and Know-How for Capitalism’, in M. Callon (ed.), The Laws of the
Market (pp. 194-221), Oxford: Blackwell.
Cochoy, F. (1999) Une histoire du marketing. Paris : La découverte. (in French)
Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W., Heian, B.H., and Samuel, S. (1998) ‘The Calculated and
the Avowed: Techniques of Discipline and Struggles over Identity in Big Six Public
Accounting Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4): 293-327.
Dean, M. (1995) ‘Governing the Unemployed Self in an Active Society’, Economy and
Society, 24(4), 559-83.
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.
Fligstein, N. (1990) The Transformation of Corporate Control, Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1981) The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, London:
Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1985) The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality, Vol. 2, New York:
Vintage books.
Foucault, M. (1997) The Politics of Truth, New York: Semiotext(e).
Foucault, M. (2000a), ‘“Omnes et Singulatim”: Toward a Critique of Political Reason’ in J.D.
Faubion (ed.), Power: The Essential Works of Foucault, Vol. 3 (pp. 298-325), New York: The
Free Press.
Foucault, M. (2000b) ‘The Subject and Power’ in J.D. Faubion (ed.), Power: The Essential
Works of Foucault, Vol. 3 (pp. 326-48), New York: The Free Press.
Gebhart G.F., Carpenter, G.S. and Sherry Jr. J.F. (2006) ‘Creating a Market Orientation: A
Longitudinal, Multifirm, Grounded Analysis of Cultural Transformations’, Journal of
Marketing, 70 (October): 37-55.
Grönroos, C. (1984) ‘A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications’, European
Journal of Marketing, 18 (4): 36-44.
Grönroos, C. (1994) ‘From Scientific Management to Service Management: A Management
Perspective for the Age of Service Competition’, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 5 (1): 5-20.
Grönroos, C. (2007) In Search of a New Logic for Marketing: Foundations of Contemporary
Theory, Chichester: Wiley.
Hackley, C. (2003) ‘“We are all Customers Now...” Rhetorical Strategy and Ideological
Control in Marketing Management Texts’, Journal Management Studies, 40 (5): 1326-52.
Hasselbladh, H. and Kallinikos, J. (2000) ‘The Project of Rationalization: A Critique and
Reappraisal of Neo-Institutionalism in Organization Studies’, Organization Studies, 21(4):
697-720.
Hodgson, D. (2002) ‘”Know Your Customer”: Marketing, Governmentality and the “New
Consumer” of Financial Services’, Management Decision, 40 (4), 318-328.
Hoyt (1929[1912]) Scientific Sales Management Today. New York: The Ronald Press
Company.
Jones, D.G.B and Shaw, E.H. (2002) ‘A History of Marketing Thought’, in B Weitz and R
Wensley (eds.) Handbook of Marketing (pp. 39-65), London: Sage.
Keith R.J. (1960) ‘The Marketing Revolution’, Journal of Marketing, 24 (January): 35-8.
Kotler, P. (1967) Marketing Management: Analysis, planning and control, London: PrenticeHall.
Kotler, P. (1972) ‘A Generic Concept of Marketing’, Journal of Marketing, 36 (April): 46-54.
Levitt, T. (1960) ‘Marketing Myopia’, Harvard Business Review, 38 (July-August): 45-56.
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan.
Marion, G. (2006) ‘Marketing Ideology and Criticism: Legitimacy and Legitmization’,
Marketing Theory, 6 (2): 245-62.
McKitterick, J.B. (1957), ‘What is the Marketing Management Concept’, in F.M. Bass (Ed.),
The Frontiers in Marketing Thought (pp. 71-82), Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Morgan, G. (2003) ‘Marketing and Critique: Prospects and Problems’, in M. Alvesson, and H.
Willmott (Ed.), Studying Management Critically (pp. 111-31), London: Sage.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985) ‘A Conceptual Model of Service
Quality and it’s Implications for Future Research’, Journal of Marketing, 49 (4): 253-68.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988) ‘SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item
Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality’, Journal of Retailing, 64 (1):
12-37.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994) ‘Reassesment of Expectations as a
Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research’,
Journal of Marketing, 58 (1): 111-24.
Rose, N. (1996) Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rose, N. (1999) Power of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Shaw, A. W. (1951[1915]) Some Problems in Market Distribution. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Sheth, J. N., Gardner, D. M. and Garrett, D. E. (1988) Marketing Theory: Evolution and
Evaluation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Shostack, L. (1977) ‘Breaking Free from Product Marketing’, Journal of Marketing, 41(2),
73-80.
Skålén, P., Fellesson, M. and Fougère, M. (2006) ‘The Governmentality of Marketing
Discourse’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22 (4): 275-291.
Skålén, P. and Fougère, M. (2007) ‘Be(com)ing and Being Normal – Not Excellent: Service
Management, the Gap-model and Disciplinary Power’, Journal of Organizational Change
Management 20 (1): 109-125.
Taylor, F.W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Norton.
Townley, B. (1998) “Beyond Good and Evil: Depth and Division in the Management of
Human Resources”. In A. McKinlay and K. Starkey (Ed.), Foucault, Management and
Organization Theory: From Panopticon to Technologies of Self (pp. 191-210). London: Sage.
Vargo, S.L., and Lusch, R.F. (2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’,
Journal of Marketing, 68 (January): 1-17.
Webster, F.E. (1992) ‘The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation’, Journal
of Marketing, 56 (October): 1-17.
White, P. (1927) Scientific Marketing Management: Its Principles and Methods. New York:
Harper and Bros.